I've posted the above picture to show that leptin secretion increases non-linearly with increasing culture period. As adipocyte content almost certainly increases non-linearly with increasing culture period (likeTHIS), leptin secretion almost certainly increases very non-linearly with increasing adipocyte content. As adipocyte content increases, there's no/minimal leptin secretion up to a certain level of fullness. Above this level of fullness, leptin secretion increases rapidly. What this means is that reducing adipocyte content by x% reduces leptin secretion by much more than x%.

If somebody's adipocytes become 100% full due to caloric excess, there are two extreme possibilities.

1a: If there is continued caloric excess, no preadipocytes are converted into adipocytes. There is no storage capacity available for excess nutrients, so they remain in circulation. T2DM has developed - BAD.

1b: If there is subsequent caloric deficit, adipocytes start to deplete, storage capacity becomes available and T2DM goes away (if
beta cells haven't been completely destroyed in the meantime). The
relatively full adipocytes secrete plenty of leptin, so metabolic rate
is high and hunger is low - GOOD.

2a: If there is continued caloric excess, pre-adipocytes are converted into
adipocytes. This is adipocyte hyperplasia. There is storage capacity available for excess nutrients, so T2DM doesn't develop - GOOD.

2b: If there is subsequent caloric deficit, adipocytes start to deplete. However, there are more adipocytes than in 1), so for a given fat mass, adipocytes are
emptier than in 1). The greater number of emptier adipocytes secrete less leptin than in 1), so metabolic rate is lower and hunger is
higher than in 1) - BAD.

Adipocyte hyperplasia is good for preventing T2DM as fat mass increases, but bad for metabolic rate and hunger after subsequent fat mass loss. I believe that growing children are much more likely to get adipocyte hyperplasia than adults. Therefore, childhood obesity is highly likely to result in misery after subsequent fat mass loss. This is why I believe that growing children should be protected from the evul greedy manufacturers of Crap-in-a-Bag/Box/Bottle (CIAB).

EDIT: Jane Karlsson just e-mailed me a link to the following study:- Adipocyte Turnover: Relevance to Human Adipose Tissue Morphology.
"Occurrence of hyperplasia (negative morphology value) or hypertrophy
(positive morphology value) was independent of sex and body weight but
correlated with fasting plasma insulin levels and insulin sensitivity,
independent of adipocyte volume (β-coefficient = 0.3, P < 0.0001). Total adipocyte number and morphology were negatively related (r
= −0.66); i.e., the total adipocyte number was greatest in pronounced
hyperplasia and smallest in pronounced hypertrophy. The absolute number
of new adipocytes generated each year was 70% lower (P <
0.001) in hypertrophy than in hyperplasia, and individual values for
adipocyte generation and morphology were strongly related (r = 0.7, P < 0.001). The relative death rate (∼10% per year) or mean age of adipocytes (∼10 years) was not correlated with morphology."

The idealised Negative Feedback Inverting Amplifier using an idealised op amp on WolframAlpha is interesting in that an idealised op amp (the triangle with + and - inputs) has infinite gain and infinite voltage on its power supplies. As a result, there is zero volts (output voltage divided by infinity) between the idealised op amp's + terminal and its - terminal. If the idealised op amp's + terminal is connected to 0V (a.k.a. "Earth"), its - terminal is at 0V (a.k.a. "Virtual Earth") and has zero variation, whatever the input voltage. An actual op amp has a voltage gain of ~140dB (~10,000,000), so an output voltage of -10V can be achieved with a voltage of 1uV (one millionth of a Volt) on its - terminal.

If pancreatic beta cells had a zero threshold and infinite gain like an idealised op amp, BG would be zero and have zero variation with varying Glucose input. Pancreatic beta cells actually have a positive threshold and low gain, so BG is positive and has significant variation with varying Glucose input.

If ISec becomes zero (as in type 1 diabetes), there is zero negative feedback and BG goes up a lot. The same thing happens to the voltage on the idealised op amp's - terminal if its power supplies are 0V instead of infinite.

If ISec becomes insufficient (as in type 2 diabetes), there is insufficient negative feedback and BG goes up a bit. The same thing happens to the voltage on the idealised op amp's - terminal if its power supplies are 5V.

Having established that ISec is proportional to overall IR, what would happen if overall IR was proportional to ISec? If ISec doubled, overall IR would double, which would double ISec, which would double overall IR, ad infinitum. ISec would increase to maximum instantly. THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN. Therefore, IR doesn't increase in proportion to ISec, short term.

Long-term, increased ISec increases IR for a variety of reasons, one of them being that increased ISec increases the rate at which cells fill with glycogen. Once full of glycogen, cells must down-regulate their intake by down-regulating Glu-T4 and Glu-T2 (fat and liver cells also up-regulate their output of stuff) or burst.

Friday, 15 June 2012

Why is it that some people see the world through weird cognitive bias filters? It makes discussion with them impossible, as what I write is remixed with weird filters into something completely different. They then argue against something completely different, not what I wrote. This is the classic Straw Man argument.

1) ""A" is..." is remixed into "I believe that "B", "C", "D",..."Z" do not exist".

2) ""A" is caused by "B"" is remixed into "A is only caused by "B"". This is similar to 1).

3) "As cells are emptied (of glycogen)..." is remixed into "Once cells are completely emptied (of glycogen)...". The "As" at the beginning of the sentence signifies an ongoing process. Next time, I'll write "As cells are depleted (of glycogen)..." EDIT: Rewritten using c/p'ed text.

4) The statement "eating too much and moving too little" is remixed into "Gluttony and Sloth". Gluttony and Sloth are conscious actions. Eating too much due to ravenous hunger and moving too little due to lethargy/sleepiness are unconscious actions. Anybody who thinks that I mean/insinuate the former rather than the latter is an idiot/insane.

Having remixed what I wrote into something completely different, I am then accused of intellectual dishonesty. Oy!

I run a health blog, so you don't need to be a rocket scientist to guess my opinion. Health. As I mentioned in "The Diet Debacle" debacle, you are what you eat i.e. if you eat/drink rubbish, you get a rubbish body. Therefore, what people eat/drink is important in order to maximise their health.

Should "food" manufacturers (whose prime objective is to maximise their profits) have the right to unduly influence people's food choices (which results in them experiencing deteriorating health) by using cunning marketing methods? I say "No".

Should "food" manufacturers have the right to unduly influence politicians into subsidising the raw ingredients of their "food" by bribery lobbying? I say "No".

It's been argued that "food" manufacturers should have the right to free speech. I disagree, as the motives of a "food" manufacturer are completely different from the motives of an individual.

I'm not asking for a ban on the marketing of non-food items or a ban on government subsidies for non-food items. Am I really asking so much?

The above are moot points, as "food" manufacturers and governments are very powerful, and nobody wants to give up power. Therefore, nothing much will change unless you people out there can persuade other people to do what you are doing by leading by example, and so on. If enough people stop buying "food" (and I'm using quotes deliberately, as a lot of "food" isn't fit for pig-swill, let alone human consumption) and start buying, cooking & eating real food, some "food" manufacturers might experience such a large drop in profits that they go out of business.

Friday, 8 June 2012

1) The comment: I'm just about to leave the following comment on Peter (Hyperlipid)'s blog post Insulin and the Rewards of overfeeding. I thought that it was so good at summing-up, I'll post it here first!

EDIT: This didn't go in my comment but should have:- "Low-carb/ketogenic diets result in the avoidance of moreish & calorific foods such as sweets, chocolate, cake, biscuits, pizza, Pringles etc. A single bite of such foods has a negligible effect on blood glucose & insulin levels, but encourages another bite and another and another ad nauseam, due to Food Reward.

2) The simile: I use similes. I used the simile "As happy as a pig in shit" in a comment somewhere on Woos blog. Now, you may (or may not) have noticed that my user-name is Nigeepoo. We Brits are obsessed by two things - The weather and our bowel movements. I find things to do with poo and farting amusing (schoolboy humour, I know!). I used the simile "As happy as a pig in shit" because it is amusing.

3) The insanity: According to Woo in the following comment:-
"Re: the comment...Sorry, not convinced.
You are basically refusing to
admit your choice of words implied moral judgement. The phrase "happier
than a pig in shit" is always applied to examples of people being
content in immorality/bad behavior particularly gluttony and sloth...
unless it is used ironically. Only an autistic or a non-english speaker
would believe this crap."

Woo, you are as mad as a March hare. IMO of course, like everything I write. Duh!

Tuesday, 5 June 2012

According to Robert H. Lustig in The Diet Debacle,"If a calorie is a calorie, then any food can be part of a balanced diet; and, if we are what we eat, then everyone chooses what they eat."

Firstly, the first nutritional maxim isn't "A calorie is a calorie". It's actually "Where bodyweight is concerned, a calorie is a calorie". Leaving out the first four words makes a huge difference to the meaning.

Secondly, the second nutritional maxim actually means "Your body is made out of what you eat. Therefore, if you eat/drink rubbish, you get a rubbish body.

The sad thing is that I actually sympathise with Robert H. Lustig's aim, which is to reduce the humongous amount of sugar that Americans shove down their throats in solid or liquid form each year.

I don't want to come across as a Socialist Asshole (it's Arsehole, Sean!), but intervention is sometimes needed to stop certain humans and groups thereof (e.g. companies/corporations) from harming other humans and groups thereof (e.g. the general population).

In City of New York Bureau of Food Discipline, Sean wrote "Never mind that the record of government diet intervention is abysmal, this time it will work." I can't speak for the US, as I don't know how things work over there. Here in the U.K, DEFRA aims to maintain standards in the way that crops are grown and in the management of farm animals. The FSA aims to maintain standards for food safety, although they do occasionally issue some dubious nutritional advice (read the comments to see some familiar names).

Just because government agencies occasionally cock things up, does that mean that we should have zero government intervention where food is concerned? I obviously think not!

Addendum: If (as I believe) corporations should be prevented from unduly influencing the general population in their food choices by banning all advertisements for foods & drinks, then governments should also be prevented from unduly influencing the general population in their food choices by banning food policies and crop subsidies. All that governments should do food-wise is enforce food safety standards.

Mice weigh very little (~30g), so they can't burn off significant amounts of energy through exercise the way that humans can. So, how on Earth can mice eat more without gaining any weight?

Peter Dobromylskyj gave me the answer. As a veterinary surgeon, he works on rodents, so he knows about this. Rodents under anaesthesia easily get hypothermia. The penny dropped! Mice have a very high surface area to mass ratio (see the above graph) compared to adult humans. As heat is lost through the skin, small animals like mice are at a disadvantage when it comes to heat conservation. They have behaviours for conserving heat e.g. covering themselves in bedding (which reduces heat loss) or huddling together in groups (which reduces overall surface area to mass ratio). Anaesthesia prevents these behaviours.

Any excess energy intake that cannot be stored due to FIRKOisation is disposed of by increased heat production in BAT and increased heat loss by reduced heat conservation behaviours. Simples!

Most adult humans have very little BAT, so they are unable to perform the same trick. If a human raises their metabolic rate significantly (say, by taking 2,4-Dinitrophenol), they tend to overheat & die.

You could try sitting in a bath of cold water. ;-p That would make me really cold and hungry (and wet!), so I would eat ravenously afterwards. But that's me. Your Mileage May Vary.

This post is a hotch-potch of thoughts that are currently whizzing around in my brain.

1) Obesity: Like just about everything in life, obesity is multi-factorial. Each factor may have only a small impact on obesity. Tackling one factor alone won't solve the problem. Every factor has to be tackled, one at a time.

EDIT: In shops and supermarkets in the UK, tobacco products now have to be kept out of sight. I'd like to see the same thing happen to Crap-In-A-Bag/Box/Bottle (CIAB).

2) Spectra: As also mentioned in my first link, there is a spectrum of fatness in the general population which probably follows a bell distribution curve. From skinniest to fattest, there are people who are:-
Extremely skinny. Very skinny. Skinny. A bit skinny. Average. A bit fat. Fat. Very fat. Extremely fat.

If you take somebody in a category who isn't currently consuming CIAB and introduce CIAB to their diet, what happens? They move to a category to the right. Therefore, it's possible for there to be very skinny people who consume CIAB. Therefore, anybody who (or should that be Wooo?) states that the existence of very skinny people who consume CIAB is proof that Food Reward doesn't exist is wrong.

About Me

I have a B.Sc.(Hons) in Electronic Engineering but no qualifications in Diet, Nutrition & Fitness, which is why I back-up what I write with links to high-quality evidence.

You can email me at
nigel.kinbrum@entee'ellworld.com
(say it!).

My suggestions must ALWAYS be checked by your Pharmacist/GP first, in case of contraindications with other medical conditions or medications that I don't know about. My suggestions are adjuncts to, NOT replacements for medication(s).

If symptoms improve, ask your GP about a reduction in medication(s), if it's/they're causing you problems.

Cheers, Nigel Kinbrum B.Sc.(Hons)Eng.

Moderation Policy:-READ THIS BEFORE COMMENTING. I can approve comments using my phone when I'm away from my lap-top, but I prefer to type replies on my lap-top, so please be patient.

Competing Interest:- When you get a $5 discount by using code NIG935 on iHerb.com, I get a $5 reward.